The Insanity of the "right" to have guns!

[Bible Highlighter]

It is a moot point because I am not debating whether Jesus taught non violence. He did. As I have stated several times, I am concerned with the statement made in the OP:

So then... if you believe Jesus taught Non-Violence, then how does this apply to the life of a Christian?

Not just guns; weapons! I have clearly shown that Jesus told the disciples to buy swords, and some of them already had them. Yes, Jesus taught non violence. Yes he rebuked Peter. I am not debating that, which makes it a moot point.

It's not a moot point because there is the very distinct possibility that Jesus meant to not even have any weapons because we don't read about the apostles having swords in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Acts 5:40 and Acts 7 show how there are no swords present. These verses would read differently if all the disciples were sword carriers.

Luke 22:36 could have been spoken in entirely spiritual terms by the Lord Jesus Christ, but the disciples misunderstood Jesus (of which fulfilled prophecy - verse 27).

That's right, you didn't say that at all and I never said you did. Here is what you said:

"#2. When we read the New Testament: We learn that the apostles did not carry swords in the New Testament as per the instruction of Luke 22:36. We read nothing about the disciples carrying swords or using swords to kill or harm others in their own self defense"

But you should have known that is not what I was talking about because I have already admitted openly to you several times that the swords were real and that it was to fulfill prophecy and that Peter used a real sword to chop off Malchus' ear with Jesus rebuking him. So to bring up this point is not what I had in view obviously. I was saying what happened AFTER the incident involving “Peter and his blunder with his sword” obviously. There was no swords used AFTER the incident involving Peter and his swordplay. Could my previous words been a little more clearer by writing the words, “After the incident with Peter involving the sword”? Sure, but I don't think it was really necessary because you should have obviously known I did not disagree with you on the incident of real swords being within the possession of Peter and another disciple during the time of Jesus' arrest.

My point is that we do!

Let's end this error right now. Here is the verse in question:

Luke 22:36-37 KJV
one. [37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished v in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Here is the prophecy:
Isaiah 53:12 KJV
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Is it your claim that Peter using his sword made him the transgressor or that the swords symbolized the transgressors? Well here is the fulfilling of the prophecy:

Mark 15:27-28 KJV
And with him they crucify two thieves; r the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. [28] And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Ste swords had nothing to do with it. Swords are not transgressors, Peter wasn't one of them and in no way do swords come into this prophecy.

Yes, Mark 15:27-28 is true.

However, the fact of the matter is that Luke 22:37 is not strung in after Luke 22:36 for no reason. Luke 22:36 is connected in context to Luke 22:37. They are not unrelated as you imply. After Luke 22:37, we read about the disciples bringing forth two swords with Jesus saying, “it is enough” in Luke 22:38. So the conversation is not ended until Luke 22:38. Obviously, the disciples bringing forth swords is what led Peter to attack back violently.

Peter was a transgressor of both the law (by opposing the religious authorities with violence) and also the plan of God for Jesus to be arrested, condemned, crucified, and resurrected. Remember when Jesus rebuked Peter said, “Get thee behind me, Satan” when he tried to stop Jesus from suffering and being killed? In fact, everyone who opposed the arrest of Jesus with violence and sword drawn opposed the will of God.

Peter was one of the transgressors (by once again setting his mind on man’s things and opposing God’s interest and plans) and Jesus was numbered with him. Keep in mind, however, that Jesus Himself was not a transgressor of any law at any time. Before we leave Luke 22:51, please compare Matthew 26:51-54. Jesus also interceded for His disciples with swords by changing their destinies, just as Isaiah predicted that Jesus would intercede for the transgressors in Isaiah 53:12. If they had used their swords, normally they would have to perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

In explaining Mark 15:27-28:

This passage does not undo Luke 22:36-37, and Peter's transgression (that Jesus undid). If Jesus did not intervene for Peter (by healing Malchus' ear) Peter would be arrested and he would also be numbered with the transgressors. But Jesus took Peter's transgression away. Jesus took all the blame and guilt Himself so that He could be the substitute for all mankind (including Peter). But the sword played a key role in how Christ would be numbered with the transgressors (of which Peter was). Both the thieves and Peter were transgressors. Jesus was numbered with Peter (a transgressor misusing the sword), and then later he was numbered with the two thieves (transgressors). So it's not a contradiction for both to be true. If this is not the case, then Jesus bringing up the point of Luke 22:37 does not make a whole lot of sense in mid conversation of talking about swords.

It simply isn't spoken of. It also never says that they got rid of the swords which the Bible says they did own. As for your examples, they are very short sighted and cannot be taken seriously.

Read Acts of the Apostles again. Every time you read it, pretend that they are carrying swords in the accounts of the apostles. Think. Do all these narratives make sense if the disciples were carrying swords? For example: Acts 5:40 does not make sense if the apostles were carrying swords because they were beaten and let go. In other words, why didn't the apostles take up their swords to defend themselves from being beaten? So... the whole idea that they carried swords does not make sense if you read Acts of the Apostles. Swords are totally absent and they don't seem to always fit the narratives we read about in the book of Acts.

It's is stupid. Jesus did not tell them to buy guns because they did not exist back then. The sword was the cutting-edge (no pun intended) weapon of the day.

It's not stupid because if Jesus wanted to stress the importance of us having weapons generically (which would include a gun), then why didn't He say so?
It's merely an assumption on your part that a sword back then is the same thing as a gun today (in relation to what Jesus commanded the disciples and not us) in Luke 22:36.

What? That Jesus told them to buy swords? That's not biblical?

I was referring to your viewpoint on how we must own guns to use in violent self defense is not biblical. Even owning a weapon is not specifically spoken of in Scripture for us believers today.
For the disciples? Yes. One of the swords (Peter's sword) was a part of fulfilling prophecy (Along with Mark 15:27-28) and for the sword being used as a lesson in Non-Violence. There is no mention of swords after the incident involving Peter and his sword. Christ's followers were beaten, and persecuted, and they did not attack back with swords when they could have. So this suggests that Luke 22:36 is not an instruction like you think it is. If it was, then we should see hardcore proof of that following in Acts of the Apostles (But we don't). The apostles carrying swords in Acts of the Apostles would have changed how we read certain stories in that book.

As for Jesus "beating". I did mispeak. The Bible says he cast them out or drove them out. He did have a whip though. What was that for?

Nothing is said of the whip hurting or killing anyone. Only one's overactive imagination can read something into Scripture that is not there.

Source used for two paragraphs in this post:
The Two Swords │ Luke 22:38 │ Christ Assembly
(Note: I do not agree with everything this author says - even in the article itself I disagree with their view on disregarding the authenticity of Mark; For I believe all of Scripture is inspired and without error).

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

I really feel bad for Native Americans. They really got the raw end of the deal.

its not like we didnt make amends to them. They got their reservations, and now, the casinos.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

There were several people that came to the Americas and the continent was known to exist for centuries. The issue is using the words founded or discovered. Christopher could say he found or discovered the Bahamas for Spain. You can find it but it is not a general discovery because it was occupied. The Indians knew it was here long before the Europeans sailed, who knew it was here before they sailed.

Now to say the English founded the first English settlements...is correct. The people that came over here could be founders of a city or a colony.....but not the continent.

agreed. Thats why i said the english founded the united states. They did, created a new govt, new society. America isnt the same as united states. Canada is part of north america yet are still with england… somehow.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Wickedness is freely on the lose in America.

“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” (Psalms 12:8)

And this is her fate:

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” (Psalms 9:17)

After the guns what next ? all knives ?
No it's a people problem that is the issue !
Who goes and shoots people ? not to mention at random ! but this issue is not being addressed as all in fact.
So the shootings are a creation of the governments ? creating low life mongrel type of people who are that weak deranged minded that they do such as we see, but this is not addressed at all !
At the end of the day people will always have guns regardless.
My mum who lived in occupied Denmark by the Nazis, who under Nazi occupation the Law was that if any Dane was found to have a gun was shot dead for having a gun ! now after the war the Danes came out showing that they had guns ! they had hidden them ! regardless of the Law ? Now the Law remember was that you will be shot dead for having one ! not to mention others in your family or who lived with you, not to mention you are going to be interrogated tortured ! And that's a fact !

So all this gun laws is nonsense that only the simple minded ignorant have faith in.

In Australia the Laws are stupid strict to have a gun ! but we still have the worse people who have guns and people are still being shot dead, we even had one bloke who had a machine gun some years ago firing away on a property, The top Cops knew and did nothing ! I am sure that they let him out of jail, so he could try and kill a lot of people ! the Hells Angles Mob did not want anything to do with this fruit loop in fact ! he was not allowed in the club ! and this idiot shot a Cop dead with the machine gun. Not to mention that Police officers wife is a Cop as well and she got a real bad dealings with the top Cop who must be totally corrupt, it all stinks ! what she had to go through was the most disgraceful conduct of a superior, not to mention this type of thing goes right to the top of the Government's regardless that is rotten to the core ! No one could be so stupid ! It was set up ! let a moron loose in the hope that the Government can set more stupid stricter Laws so as to dominate over everyone like a mongrel Dog Nazi State !
That's what we are facing, an evil that is working to undermine all people and dominate over all, It's they who set the Cancer off, encouraging such low life to grow out of control.

They created the Cancer ! not to mention I and many others have been pointing out the root of the problems for years, but it's their baby they created it all in fact.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It does not do any good to rant against the US not having guns. That's most likely never going to happen. Again, what is good is preaching the truth on Non-Violence in the New Testament to other believers. Let the seeds fall into the hearts who are able to receive them with joy. Most just like to do their own thing these days. It's not really about following Jesus for many Christians today. It's their way with Jesus thrown into the mix.

 

[FHII]

So then... if you believe Jesus taught Non-Violence, then how does this apply to the life of a Christian?

Romans 12:18 KJV
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

It's not a moot point because there is the very distinct possibility that Jesus meant to not even have any weapons because we don't read about the apostles having swords in the book of Acts of the Apostles

It is. I am successfully showing that they did have swords and you are unsuccessfully claiming they didn't. And I'm not going on your "maybe".

But you should have known that is not what I was talking about because I have already admitted openly to you several times

I'm not going on what you meant. I am going on what you said.

Yes, Mark 15:27-28 is true.

However, the fact of the matter is that Luke 22:37 is not strung in after Luke 22:36 for no reason. Luke 22:36 is connected in context to Luke 22:37. They are not unrelated as you claim. After Luke 22:37, we read about the disciples bringing forth two swords with Jesus replying saying, it is enough in Luke 22:38. So the conversation is not ended until Luke 22:38. Obviously, the disciples bringing forth swords is what led Peter to attack back violently.

Not going to bother with this. The swords had nothing to do with the prophesy as I have clearly shown. The Bible gives and explains the prophesy. Your attempt to include it is not biblical and I do not accept it. Peter was not a transgressor in this prophesy. The Bible explains the prophesy and that's enough for me.

Read Acts of the Apostles again. Every time you read it, pretend that they are carrying swords in the accounts of the apostles, and see how they could make logical sense

Your logic is flawed and so are your accusations. I never said or pretend they were carrying swords. I stated that the Bible doesn't say either way. Your logic is that they would've fought back if they had swords. That's stupid. It's short sided. But if you don't understand why Jesus didn't refer to guns and deny obvious reasoning, I am not surprised.

I was referring to your viewpoint on how we must own guns to use in violent self defense is not biblical.

When did I say that? Did you catch the point I made when I said I don't own a gun? Where did I say that even if we have it we must use it?

This is rediculous... Your interpretation of prophecy is false, your accounts of what I said is false and your accounts of the Bible is at worse false and at best mere speculation.

Go ahead and defend yourself, but bother no more with it.

 

[FHII]

Folks, I am bowing out of this conversation. Let me offer my conclusion.

I abhor violence on all levels and I understand the outlash some may have. I want to say whe I have owned a gun, I do not currently own one. I haven't owned one in 30+ years and have no plans to buy one. I owned one for 2 years that was given to me. While I did some target practice with it, I never used it or brandished it for defense.

To ignore the Old Testament is ridiculous. And we see many wars and defenses in it. Even so a d being under a new convenent, we are clearly different.

But the fact remains that Jesus did tell his disciples to buy swords and in fact, some of them already did. For those who don't know... Guns didn't exist then.

Historically, it is not surprising that some disciples had swords. They traveled alot and there were robbers on the roads. The disciples were being trained, but they also were a security team. It was a deterrent to travel in large groups and even more so if they were armed. Those things are not in the Bible, but historically, they are correct.

Jesus never once said don't own a weapon. In fact, he did say to do so. Today's Christian should rely on God, but still he doesn't say not to own a weapon.

One of the best things you can do to deter an attacker is to own a gun. An even better thing is to have buddy's around you that to. It's a pretty good method of keeping peace. It may not prevent violence, but it's a factor.

If anyone can provide a foolproof plan to rid the entire world of guns, I am all ears! I am on board! They have banned guns in New York City and Chicago.... and it isn't working.

The draconian measure is to go from house to house and confiscate 100% of all guns. Not only will that not be possible, but is that what youwant?

If it were possible, what would it change? There are still evil people who will find ways to do evil.

That's it.

 

[Grailhunter]

agreed. Thats why i said the english founded the united states. They did, created a new govt, new society. America isnt the same as united states. Canada is part of north america yet are still with england… somehow.

Canada was colonized by the French quite a while before the English came.

Anything regarding the United States cannot be connected until after the American Revolutionary War.

The Pilgrims where from England but they are kind of after the fact.

The Jamestown colony and the Virginia Company....this is good short history of it.
A Short History of Jamestown - Historic Jamestowne Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

Providence "Rhode Island" was founded in 1636 by a preacher named Roger Williams, who was forced to flee Massachusetts because of religious persecution. Williams purchased land from the Narragansett Indians and started a new settlement with a policy of religious and political freedom. The purpose and reason for this was because the other colony's were clashing on religious issues....particularly the Puritans that got along with no one. They did not come to the Americas for religious freedom, they came to the Americas to practiced their religion freely and were not agreeable with other religions. So Roger William started a colony that was the first to insist on religions freedoms and tolerance.

 

[farouk]

If it weren't for the oppression from the British, we probably wouldn't even have the 2nd amendment, as it is written. Just sayin'.

@Qoheleth I think recent posts show that thought to a significant extent is geographical. Probably with @ByGraceThroughFaith I would have a fairly similar outlook; I would also recognize that his views on some issues will be strongly influenced by his geographical provenance. (As I'm sure mine would be also...)

 

[farouk]

FHII: It's interesting that on the way to Gethsemane the Lord Jesus asked one of his disciples whether he had a sword. It's interesting also that He didn't want the disciples to use it, as He in silent dignity allowed Himself to be led away to a miscarriage of justice and the Crucifixion, as 'as sheep before his shearers is dumb, so He opened not his mouth', truly 'obedient unto death, even the death of the cross'.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Haa Haa belly roll! Well I am thinking that they did not plant a English flag on the shore.....LOL
And another fun fact, you cannot discover or "founded" a land that is occupied. LOL
An English man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of England!
An Spanish man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of Spain.
Except for the indigenous tribes that lived in the Americas, as far we know the Viking Leif Erikson was the first to see it.

here is a childs question for you, what do the 13 stripes on your flag represent?

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

There were several people that came to the Americas and the continent was known to exist for centuries. The issue is using the words founded or discovered. Christopher could say he found or discovered the Bahamas for Spain. You can find it but it is not a general discovery because it was occupied. The Indians knew it was here long before the Europeans sailed, who knew it was here before they sailed.

Now to say the English founded the first English settlements...is correct. The people that came over here could be founders of a city or a colony.....but not the continent.

America before the English Puritans arrived, was PAGAN, worshipping the devil!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Canada was colonized by the French quite a while before the English came

small parts. Canada, including the French, Scottish and other parts, is still under the English Crown!

 

[farouk]

small parts. Canada, including the French, Scottish and other parts, is still under the English Crown!

The Queen in Canada is styled the Queen of Canada. Victoria Day is celebrated in Anglophone Canada; in Quebec, the 19th century Patriotes - who were republican, are commemorate on the same day, known in Quebec as la journée des Patriotes. The republican flag of the Patriotes is sometimes flown, as well as Quebec's Fleur-de-lisé flag.

This is the republican flag of the Patriotes:

wikimedia commons cc AC 3.0, user:Judicieux

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The Queen in Canada is styled the Queen of Canada. Victoria Day is celebrated in Anglophone Canada; in Quebec, the 19th century Patriotes - who were republican, are commemorate on the same day, known in Quebec as la journée des Patriotes. The republican flag of the Patriotes is sometimes flown, as well as Quebec's Fleur-de-lisé flag.

This is the republican flag of the Patriotes:

wikimedia commons cc AC 3.0, user:Judicieux

The Order of Government of the WHOLE of Canada:

Government


Federal parliamentary
constitutional monarchy


• Monarch


Elizabeth II

• Governor General


Mary Simon

• Prime Minister


Justin Trudeau

 

[Grailhunter]

here is a childs question for you, what do the 13 stripes on your flag represent?

You so funny. The number 13 appears in several symbologies of the United States of America. Most if not all are connected to the 13 colonies.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

the 13 colonies.

ALL, not most. and WHO founded these?

 

[Grailhunter]

America before the English Puritans arrived, was PAGAN, worshipping the devil!

By your estimation I could see how you believed that. But to say they were Pagan would be accurate. That does not mean they were not living here with their own societies and culture.....North and South America were occupied and you cannot discover something that is known....you can discover for yourself....you can say you discovered something for a country...the Queen. But in this case the continient was known to exist, they just came here. By the time the English came here others had already been here. No discovery.

In a smaller sense you can say that someone discovered a previously unknown cave.

 

[Grailhunter]

small parts. Canada, including the French, Scottish and other parts, is still under the English Crown!

That is why I like to lump it into European.....but the Vikings were not under any crown.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

That is why I like to lump it into European.....but the Vikings were not under any crown.

The "head" of Canada is the Monarch of England. Not any other country